Slashdot Mirror
NASA Study: Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
submitter bigwheel sends this excerpt from a NASA news release:
The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years. Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself. "The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."
Lots of Ice melting. Could be that all the energy is going into phase change right now.
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
Well, apparently NASA is not part of the global science conspiracy to lie about the climate so they can rake in the subsidies.
Allow my naivete to shine: What's the temperature of all of the rock that water is in contact with, and what's its thermal capacity relative to the water? Could it be that it's slow to warm as you need to warm all the rock it's in contact with?
Program Intellivision!
Because that is what every new report is field of science that we don't actually understand.
And we don't. As regards global climate we have models and data but we don't really understand what is going on here. We never have. And that isn't to say that AGW isn't happening or is or anything one way or the other. But rather that it is extremely complicated and extremely confusing.
This article is going to make the anti AGW people feel vindicated just like the walrus thing made the pro AGW people feel vindicated. It is going to go back and forth. I'm sure tomorrow or the next day we'll get another report of something that backs up the AGW side and this article will just be forgotten.
That is just the politics. For those of us that don't care about the politics... this should just be interesting.
So what we get here is that the heat predicted by the models is still missing.
That is interesting. So we should keep looking for it. And until it is found those supporting the climate models that require that heat to be somewhere really should be some what humble about their position until the heat is found. Which is reasonable. But assuming they don't want to do that for whatever reason... Whatever. We're going to respond to this issue however makes best sense to each of us.
For me... I'm going to take with a grain of salt anything someone says when they don't show what I feel to be a reasonable amount of humility on an issue they cannot claim to fully understand. By all means... form your own opinions.
For me... this is just another interesting data point. I await more.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Today not at all.
Nothing like settled and well defined science.
Yesterday it was about the top layer, today about the deeper layers. Oceans are big and varied, you know.
Shouldn't the oceans fall under the NOAA's domain? Or are we "cross pollinating" science now. Maybe the next US manned space shot will be aboard the NOASS Nautilus launched from Woods Hole.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I didnt read the typical remark in these kind of news: "This doesnt contradict global warming".
No extra heat needs to be found because the earth is not warming any more than usual during the latter stages of an inter-glacial. Seems to fit the observed phenomenon.
Alternate explanation is that not all feedbacks are positive and the plant food that has been modeled to cause AGW is just a bit player. That also seems to fit the observed behavior as CO2 continues to rise but global temps have plateaued.
We can leave the door open to the 'oh shit' possibilities, but really, that's starting to feel shrill and played out.
Again, I've repeatedly explained that the power needed to cool the walls is irrelevant, and that it isn't required to be constant.
Again, why does Jane think if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in? For example, black body "power in" depends on the chamber walls even though "power out" through that boundary doesn't depend on the chamber walls.
Since we agree that "electrical heating power" goes to zero when the chamber walls are also at 150F, has Jane also noticed that "net heat transfer" also goes to zero when the chamber walls are also at 150F?
Isn't that a weird coincidence? So why does Jane keep using an equation that depends on "electrical heating power = radiative power out" without even writing down an energy conservation equation to try to justify that claim? Has Jane even considered the possibility that if he applied conservation of energy, he'd find that electrical heating power really is determined by net heat transfer, rather than "radiative power out" which stays constant even if the chamber walls are also at 150F?
If there's no net radiative power coming in, that must mean all the "power in" from the chamber walls just goes back out. That would yield a net of zero. But as usual Jane didn't write down the power in = power out equation showing these terms before they supposedly cancel. Is this what you mean, Jane?
Draw a boundary around the heat source:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
Jane's power out = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out
At steady state, Jane's power in = Jane's power out:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out (Jane's equation?)
Jane, is that your equation for required electrical heating power? By "NO NET RADIATIVE POWER COMING IN", are you saying "radiative power in from the chamber walls" = "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out"?
Seriously!
We don't care about lame singers or hollywood bullshit.
Thank you.
Is the "pause" still real today or is that denier fraud again?
So, scientists say "Earth is warming but we can't find the few percent of excess heat expected".
Deniers "Proof there is global cooling!! Alarmists showed wrong!"
If this was about gravity it would go, "There needs to be Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain some of the things we observe at large distances"
Gravity deniers would say "Proof that Earth is Flat! Gravity does not exist! It's a push, not a pull! The spaghetti monster is touching us all! Scientists can't explain it!"
So why are flat earthers laughed out and AGW deniers not? Perhaps it has to do with our inability, as a society, to actually plan for the future. We live in this la-la world of "Whatever will be, will be. The future is not for us to see". Maybe we can't plan for the future after all and just need to die off like bacteria in a Petri dish, dying in their own shit.
I find that hilarious because cosmology is so close to religion it's getting hard to tell the difference. 40 years of people insisting things were black holes and now they don't happen.
http://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09...
In the atmosphere there's a situation: The weather all happens down near the surface, in a region called the troposphere. Here the density/temperature gradients can result in instabilities, where a parcel of air that is, say, lighter than its sourroundings can become MORE ligher-than-its surroundings as it moves up (and vice-versa). Above that is another (set of) layer(s) called the "stratosphere", where everything is most stable right where it is. Nothing very exciting happens there except when something coming up REALLY fast from below coasts up a bit before it stabilizes and moves back down.
The oceans do something similar, but upside down:
Water has an interesting property: Like most materials it gets more dense as it gtss colder - but only up to a point. As it approaches freezing the molecules start hanging out in larger groups, working their way toward being ice crystals. The hydrogens on one molecule attract the oxygens on another, and because of the angle between the hydrogens bondended to the oxygen in each molecule, the complexes are somewhat LESS dense than liquid. As a result, with progressively lower temperatures the density reaches a maximum, then the water begins to expand again. When it actually freezes it is so much less dense than near-freezing liquid that the ice floats. With fresh water the maximum density happens about 4 degrees C. Salt disrupts the crystalization somewhat so the maximum density is a tad cooler (and varies a bit with salt concentration - and thus depth), but the behavior is similar.
The result is that, when you have a mix of cooler and hotter blobs of fresh water, the water closer to 4 degrees sinks and that farther from it rises. The result is that, absent a heat or impurity source below, the bottom (and much of the volume) of a deep lake tends to be stable, stratified, water at about 4 degrees year around, while all the deviations from it and "weather" activity is in no more than about the top 300 feet: Wave action, ice, hot and cold currents, etc. are all above the reasonably abrupt "thermocline" boundary. Below that things are very slow, driven mostly by things like volcanic heat. (Diffusion is REALLY slow in calm water. It takes decades for, say, dissolved impurities to move a couple inches.)
The ocean is much like that, too, but a little cooler and with some temperature ramps spreading out the thermocline due to variations in salt concentration.
So global warming/cooling/weather, whatever would NOT be expected to affect deep water temperatures. This would all be happening in the top few hundred feet. If, say, the ocean were heating up without the surface water temperature changing, this would take the form of the thermocline gradually lowering near the equator and/or rising near the poles, rather than the deep water becoming warmer.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The article from the other day was quite clearly talking about the upper waters.
This one is quite clearly talking about much deeper waters.
You got that right! It's a wonderful thing and the way they measured this using gravitational anomalies viewed from space is a great testament to our progress as a species. We are documenting our destruction in unprecedented detail.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
was the civilian aviation research agency that did much of the important aviation research that advanced aircraft and flying so much between WWI and WWII (only approx 20 years). As such, much of NASA's heritage was in atmospheric flight. The (then) new NASA was planning to launch people into space (up, through, and out of the atmosphere) and then recover them again (plunging back through the atmosphere) so the atmosphere of the Earth was a very important thing for NASA to study. As a result, the 1958 Space Act which created NASA included the following item as one of the Agency's eight objectives:
"The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space"
Over the decades, two groups within NASA have stretched this to the limits of logic: One group is the people at Goddard who have made careers for themselves studying the Earth (which as you alluded is actually the legal job of NOAA (for the atmosphere and oceans) and USGS (the dirt and rocks)). The other group is at JPL where they pretend that because they study other worlds with atmospheres, oceans, and geology (which the Earth obviously also has) this means the NASA charter means they should study the Earth too. Both groups have people who build careers designing and operating unmanned probes (mostly studying worlds from space, which most-easily means studying the sorts of things NOAA and USGS do on Earth) and seem to have morphed into groups who have forgotten which agency they serve and are so focused on their mis-read of NASA's mission that they actually get upset at the idea of NASA taking their money and spending it sending people into space (i.e. they have missed the forest for the trees). NASA should only be studying the Earth to the extent that it affects flight, and should invite NOAA and USGS along as co-investigators (much more than the limited degree they currently do - the principle investigators on non-flight matters should be from those other agencies) on robotic probes of other worlds (but the career guys would probably balk because it would involve sharing money and control on those missions)
The people who setup NASA in the first place did it in response to Sputnik, and the mention of the Earth's atmosphere was in the context of NASA doing for the atmosphere and space what NACA had previously done only for the atmosphere: figure out how to operate vehicles in that environment with increasing capability and efficiency, thereby helping both American civilian industry, and American military capability. NASA was not created as a super "tree hugger" organization (look to EPA, NOAA, USGS, NPS, etc for that). I personally think that this is one of many reasons that NASA has become so incapable in recent years; there are too many people in the agency at various centers who are not there to advance aviation and/or spaceflight at all - those people are in the wrong agency. James Hansen, for example, should NEVER have been in NASA at Goddard; he would have been a perfectly reasonable person to have at NOAA. Indeed, by having people like him at NASA, NASA became political and a bit toxic. This all kicked into high-gear in the seventies under Nixon and Carter with politicians responding to the rise of modern environmentalism, and the gap in manned spaceflight that occurred between Apollo and Shuttle. Before that time, there were few in NASA who thought that studying the temperature of the oceans or the extent of Antarctic sea ice had anything to do with NASA's mission beyond perhaps the survival gear and training astronauts might need for off-nominal landing scenarios.
You shouldn't mention these sort of thing because they go against AGW which provides a lot of government power. His is a jerk for going against the common story we have crafted.
Climate: (noun) - anything in the sky or seas that can be twisted to support the claims that the world will end if we do not all pay higher taxes and give governments more power over individuals.
Weather: (noun) - anything in the sky or seas that might be twisted into an argument that governments do not need more money and power in order to "save the planet"
Examples of proper usage:
1. Hurricanes: when large and devastating, like Katrina, they are climate and proof of global warming, but when absent for a record-setting period of time they become weather and anybody who cites them as evidence of non-warming is an IDIOT
2. Temperatures: when high in a place like California, they are climate and proof of global warming, but when very low in a place like the midwest and explained as a "polar vortex" they are just weather and anybody claiming temperatures matter is an IDIOT who doesn not "get" the difference between "climate" and "weather"
3. Droughts: When hitting California worse than younger citizens remember in their short lives they are climate and proof of global warming, but when people are reminded that they have happened many times before and when evidence shows that the current one too is tied to El Nino/La Nina weather patterns they are....... um...... still climate and proof the world will end if we do not abandon the free market, personal liberty, etc (when something is a disaster that can be used no matter what, it remains climate)
The Quest for an explanation must continue.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Looking at the WikiPedia chart, there have been down and flat periods in the past, such as the early 1990's. The bumpiness is on about 10 year cycles or spans. The latest "pause" does not appear outside of that pattern, at least not yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Table-ized A.I.
This! While your excellent explanation is better than what I could've given, I still think /. really has hit rock bottom when the other comments don't even show a high school level of basic "how shit works" knowledge.
A lot of the risk mitigation is not really that expensive. Isolating buildings properly to require less heating and cooling is often a good investment anyway. Solar and wind energy are roughly competitive nowadays so why not encourage people to use it? Investing in public transport is wise for many other reasons than just CO2 emissions, and so on. Investing some public money in research for alternative energy is not that expensive either. One or two dollars/euros (or the equivalent in the local currency) per person per month would already help a lot, and would allow further research in energy storage, more efficient production of alternative energy, upscaling research results, etc. Finally, some risk assessment and mitigation in coastal areas is also important, but again that doesn't have to bankrupt any economy.
Is this enough if all the AGW predictions are correct? Probably not, but why not get started with the easy things while we learn more? Even if the AGW deniers were right after all, most of the above measures are a wise investment anyway, so why would anyone be against this?
Change of albedo could have slowed in the sense that the polar ice cap is getting thinner instead of shrinking.
Whoa... Yet another one that simply doesn't get science at all.
The worst part of this study is that it will be the sole and exclusive finding armchair libertarians and, worst of all, extreme-right politicians will latch onto. They'll point and froth at the mouth from how hard they're screaming, "SEE?! SEE?! NO ONE KNOWS, NOT MANMADE!" and carry on with their not-transparent-at-all pocketing of money from Koch, Exxon, Chesapeake, et al.
I know it's part of the scientific process, and it's an important acknowledgement, but the worst thing these researchers could've done was admit, "We're not sure." That single sentence just made every pro-energy lobbyist O-face with the utmost glee. Now they have a study they can beat like a dead horse and drag out for decades.
I just hope I'm being overly cynical and not predicting the future. :/
Its happening, and it is finally happening quickly. The best part is that "decarbonizing" is finally being led by business for reasons of profitability in the electricity, transport, building and manufacturing sectors. (Agriculture could use some more help.) The oil, gas, coal and legacy electric generators are still financing a lot of FUD, but they're facing dropping demand for their products (except natural gas) in many markets, and the worldwide trend long-term is bending down.
Wind and solar are adding capacity very quickly now - approaching nuclear in total installed capacity and will probably pass nuclear in capacity*availability in the next 10 years. Wind is supplying at $0.025/kWh without subsidy in some locations, and that is beating CC natural gas.
The war is actually won, all that's left is 30-50 years of implementation. It will probably go even faster than that.
No doubt the climate change hippies will spin this as exactly what one expects in climate change. Just like they spun recent cold winters as an indication of global warming. Billion dollar universities and researchers have a huge monetary motivation for keeping the climate change specter alive, it's their funding. So expect a big spin on this evidence.
The AGW argument is dead. Perhaps efforts should now go into things that 90% of the population can get behind. Clean air, water, soil and food are great places to start. Perhaps real energy solutions like a Thorium reactor (fueled by the giant radioactive ‘waste’ piles created when mining rare earth metals for solar panels and wind turbines) should get serious consideration. The amount of energy people have access to directly correlates to the standard of living.
It’s all about energy density and we need to make that next step. Holding people back will never happen so why not just move on?
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
Isn't sea-level measured relative to shore-lines? Perhaps the sea levels aren't rising at all. Perhaps the land is falling. Huge difference.
"leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years"
ROTFL
Seems strange to me that temperatures taken earlier were ignored. Of course that pesky Artic Ice Cap is going away anyway, so who cares?
Judith Curry, a Georgia Tech professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (and former chair of the department) posted on this recently:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/05/evidence-of-deep-ocean-cooling/#more-17028
She is probably best characterized as a 'lukewarmer' and has testified to Congress on AGW multiple times. Her blog is well-balanced and has far higher standard of global warming scientific discussion and discourse than the typical Slashdot posts, though certainly imperfect at times.
Global warming is just a distraction from the real problem. Pollution will kill many more mammals sooner. Clean water is more important than "clean coal".
Heat rises, does not sink. The convection current in oceans is super dense cold saline water sinking from the icecaps, so no warming there.
My guess is deep oceans warm when everything above them has warmed enough to do forcing or there was a mass inversion event. Photon flux might create the necessary conditions for deep ocean warming, how that interacts with the electro magnetosphere and the change in electromagnetic properties of warming environments is beyond my level of study, tho.
The case for AGW has in no way been made in the same way as that as for gravity. In fact, were Newton to present his research in a similar manner, it's as if you walked up and found the apple nailed to the table.
And those who have alternative theories to dark matter don't have people standing around them, pointing and jeeringly repeating "Consensus, consensus, consensus...". Nor get denied employment nor find it hard to publish their research.
The human race dumps in excess of 40 BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, every year.
The atmospheric co2 concentration increases by about 2 ppm per year. That equates to about 1.03x10^13 kg/yr or 10.3 billion metric tons added to the atmosphere per year (which has a mass of about 5150000 billion tons). However, the global production of co2 from fossil fuel combustion (coal, oil, and gas) is about 48.9 billion mt per year. Therefore, approximately 79 percent of all of co2 produced from fossil fuel combustion is sequestered as well as 100 percent of the co2 produced from respiration, forest fires, organic matter decay, natural gas seeps, etc. To put this in perspective, if all of the known reserves of global fossil fuels were combusted at present rates, they would last about 75 years during which time the atmospheric co2 concentration would rise from the present 400 ppm to about 550 ppm before plummeting as the supply of new co2 fizzled out. More likely, though, is that fossil fuel prices will rise as they become more scarce leading to reduced combustion rates that will extend their life out to several centuries. In that case, the atmospheric co2 concentration would rise from 400 ppm to some number quite a bit lower than 550 ppm. Will planetary temperatures skyrocket when the co2 concentration is 550 ppm? No more than they have at present. As TFA points out, the heat that is allegedly being trapped by the atmospheric co2 gas...cannot be found. If the additional heat is being trapped as the crude computer models have predicted, it has to be somewhere. Global surface temperatures, polar ice caps, ocean surface temperatures, and, now, deep ocean temperatures do not show the present of sufficient heat. Where is it going? Or...as the deniers have been saying, the computer models might be...wrong...and co2 does not block the heat in the way that they claim due to kinetic gas mixing and radiation of heat from other much more abundant atmospheric gas molecules of o2 and n2.
Actually the picture is pretty cohesive, but was presented rather poorly by bigwheel. Yesterday the deep oceans (between 700m and 2000m) were warming more than expected. Today we find that if you add the warming we have measured down to 2000m with the melting we have measured at the poles, you can account for almost 100% of sea level rise. We can then probably conclude that there is little or no warming below 2000m. It looks like Bigwheel may have been confused by the word 'deep', even though the distinction is made clear by the article that he posted: "Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down."
This is impossible. Al Gore assured me that "the science is settled". NASA must be a bunch or crazy tea party-birther-truthers!
At my university, they are moving the climate coursework to the Department of Religious Studies. That's how progressive we are!
Christ almighty that link is total gibberish. I assume Mersini didn't see it or approve it before it was published because it's rife with errors.
Event horizons are not membranes in any physical sense, it's been known that Hawking radiation causes an object to lose mass since Hawking's original paper on the subject--in fact, that's the only reason Hawking radiation is interesting, it's the one way for mass to "escape" the event horizon--and few think the Big Bang started from a singularity in the sense meant in this article (even Hawking, who wrote THAT paper too, arguing for a pre-Big Bang singularity doesn't think that's what happened anymore).
The idea that Hawking radiation could overwhelm the gravitational collapse is interesting and merits further investigation, but it is by no means "proof" or "conclusive" of anything.
Yeah TBH that PHD on my wall really doesn't mean I understand science after all it's in C.S.
What I do understand about science is that when I was getting me education 40 years scientists were still people who understood how much they didn't know.
Seems in many fields that stopped and they became people who were certain of everything and convinced anyone who had doubts should be pilloried.
Kurt Vonnegut
Seriously, all we need is the tiniest drop of Ice-9 and problem solved.
Whoa!
Dude!
Damn!! I'm sorry
Whoa!
Damn!
Again, I originally assumed black bodies because they're simpler: black bodies don't reflect any radiation. That means "power in" depends on the chamber walls and "power out" through that boundary only depends on the heat source.
The crucial assumption isn't 100% efficiency, it's that nothing inside the boundary is changing. If not, power in != power out. Either way, conservation of energy doesn't imply that "if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in." Otherwise it would apply to black bodies, and that isn't true. Otherwise it would apply even if that source is warming, so power in > power out, but that isn't true either.
Once again, Jane confuses "radiative power out" which depends only on emissivity and temperature, with "electrical heating power" which goes to zero if the chamber walls are also at 150F.
Jane coyly says that my attempt to understand Jane's energy conservation equation doesn't even remotely resemble Jane's super-secret energy conservation equation. Which he still refuses to write down.
Then, once again, Jane writes down the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which only determines "radiative power out" without even trying to write down an energy conservation equation to show how it relates to "electrical heating power". This means Jane either doesn't understand that "radiative power out" is different than "electrical heating power", or Jane doesn't understand that conservation of energy is necessary to l
Remember to include that part where I originally assumed black bodies because they're simpler. And the part where Jane insisted that "we should use real materials with real emissivities and absorptivies. Just to keep everybody honest."
But black bodies aren't "dishonest". Also, Jane should make sure to include the part where Jane said I was "lying again" for considering a black body source.
But if Jane wants to work on the simpler black body problem that I originally proposed months ago, that's fine with me. It's simpler, and easier to learn from.
No, that's because the equation for radiant power emittance doesn't have anything to do with conservation of energy, so those extra terms wouldn't be in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in the first place.
That's what I've been trying to tell you, Jane. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation can give you "radiative power out" but only a completely different principle called "conservation of energy" can give you a totally different quantity known as "electrical heating power".
So you're saying electrical heating power is the same as radiative power out? What did that energy conservation equation look like before you cancelled terms? It's important.
Jane, just two days ago you claimed that you didn't say radiative power out was the same as electrical heating power, and that they don't need to be the same. Today you're saying they are the same.
Answered here.
ok, time to re-think this nonsense.
"One of the least challenged claims of global warming science is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a “well-mixed gas.” A new scientific analysis not only debunks this assertion but also shows that standard climatology calculations, applicable only to temperature changes of the minor gas, carbon dioxide were fraudulently applied to the entire atmosphere to inflate alleged global temperature rises" (quote from a PDF DOC - can't remember the source)
So, let's also think about the ice-melting we hear so much about.. see: http://dailym.ai/1rZl3jU
But hey, don't worry - plenty of skeptics out there vouching for you still. So, why not have a look back to National geographic? Who'd trust them anyway, especially when they suggest this... http://bit.ly/1shlF7h
So, let's keep this simple: Sun gets hotter, we get hotter. Sun gets cooler, we get cooler. Man, what kind of crazy arsed science is that kind of thinking?
I'm not saying we're free to go pollute the world with crap now, or that burning every ounce of coal and oil is fine - because for the sake of progress of human kind, it's only a short stop-off on our way to much better things.
What can we expect? Well, for a start, we have to laugh heartily at anything NASA has to say really, as Cosmology - the "queen" of the sciences, is so wrong, it couldn't be further from the truth, of how the universe works. So have a look at : www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA
There's much more up-to-date info too, but basically, www.thunderbolts.info is a gerat site, and check out the archives!
Ok, so we're in an electrical universe? So what? Well Nikola Tesla (who? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla ) tells us a lot more than one Wiki article can tell us. Basically, he knew how to tap into this unlimited source. It's not just rumour. he's not the only one to figure this out either. But let's not go there! Instead, let's be more "realistic" in what we can hope for. So let's turn to Russia : http://bit.ly/1shnRM2
Oh, so nuclear isn't so bad now? But what about those wind-farms we all love to hate? http://bit.ly/1m6lIeB
Well, that's one such argument, anyway - I remember the best one about a cold still winter's day, when we're pumping power into these things to keep them moving, and not freezing the components, as that's damaging to them. nice! So over the year, the average wind gen isn't even practically neutral.
How about solar? We all know it works, but the space needed! I still think it's a given, but the infrastructure for off-shore wind, and for on-shore solar is a nightmare, especially when our electrical infrastructure world-wide is not really keeping pace with demand, not their faults - being sent on fools errands with Wind, and solar (don't talk about cloud, or night, or worse still, a cloudy night with no wind). Well, moving on, I'm trying to ease into Tesla's proven experiement : The magnifying transmitter. We can transmit power globally, with practically no loss, and no wires! Limitless. Problem is, we can't plug a "meter" in to charge people, or prevent them taking it. So all energy production globally would have to be a function of Government. But that's another story!
Besides which, what would happen if we have tons more CO2 in the atmosphere? It's so insignificant a number anyway, we can't be serious in demonizing it! What kind of fruit-cake science demonizes the critical gas needed by all plant-life to grow? Well, experiments show.... they grow faster! So absorbing it anyway. Granted, we're releasing a lot more than the Earth is absorbing. So it would seem the green movement looks like the right actions, for the wrong reasons, in my view. I see it as more successful than all the pollution arguments of the 70's and 80's - and what was the West's answer? Ship of the nasty stuff to China. It's their problem now - but look! Our CO2 emissions have dropped! Aren't we good?
That's got to be enough of a head-screw for most readers. Enjoy!
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Here are 2 predictions. First I predict that CO2 will continue to increase because China and other countries don't care about CO2. They don't even care about real pollutants much less CO2. Second I predict it will get colder over the next 20-30 years. Why?
Dr Libby in the 1970s said that "looking forward it will stay cold until the mid 80s (it did), then it will warm by about 1/4 degree F until the end of the century (it did), then it gets cold". When asked how cold she was predicting a 1-2 degree F drop with an outside chance of a 3-4 degree drop.
Dr Easterbrook in 2001 said the PDO was done it's positive warm cycle and that we were in for 25-30 years of cold weather. How cold? We have his good, bad and ugly predictions based on previous negative cold phases of the PDO.
As to their comments about the ocean still rising the question is "at what rate?" and "is that a problem?". Tidal station gauges have been in existence for a century now, and as I mentioned earlier, the measured rate of sea level rise has been quite constant, about 18 cm per century. So no that isn't a problem.
Yeah, our coastal cities are in ruins.
Most of the sea level rise so far has been a result of nothing more than thermal expansion. The quicker and more drastic rise from the ice caps melting is yet to come, though since the idiocracy now basically rules the world, the demise of our socioeconomic system is nearly guaranteed.
Good grief, Jane. As I've repeatedly explained, the gray body equation has to reduce to the black body equation when emissivity = 1. I wasn't lying or being blatantly dishonest. I was trying to show you how to check your work.
Jane still refuses to write down his energy conservation equation before he "canceled" terms, so I still have to guess at his original equation. This still seems like the only energy conservation equation consistent with what Jane's saying above:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out (Jane's equation?)
Again, Jane appears to be saying that "radiative power in from the chamber walls" = "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out". If that's the case, then those terms would cancel as Jane claims. That's the only way to get from "power in = power out" to Jane's final equation:
Really? Let's use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to describe the radiative terms, one at a time. Let's start with a term we can probably agree on. Because "radiative power out from source" is emitted by a graybody source at temperature T1, the Stefan-Boltzmann law says:
electrical heating power per square meter + radiative power in from chamber
Only if "already accounts for" means "completely ignores" in Janeland.
Once again, it seems like we disagree about the meaning of the term "NET".
1. Can we agree that net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"?
2. Can we agree that net power through a boundary is only zero if "radiative power out" equals "radiative power in"?
3. Can we agree that "radiative power out" only equals "radiative power in" if the source and the chamber walls are at the same temperature?
If we can agree on those three points... how can the net power be zero when the source is warmer than the chamber walls?
So you're not going to retract your claim that net power is zero when the source is warmer than the chamber walls?
Is Jane using some kind of special Sky Dragon Slayer definition of the word "net"? In physics, net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".
By the way, just in case it wasn't obvious from the fact that I was responding to Jane's claims of zero net radiation absorbed and zero net radiative power output, I was talking about net radiative power because that's what Jane seemed to be talking about. That's why my equation only has radiative terms. Here's a less ambiguous version:
So you're not going to retract your claim that net radiative power is zero when the source is warmer than the chamber walls?
Is Jane using some kind of special Sky Dragon Slayer definition of the word "net"? In physics, net radiative power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".
If net radiative power is "all inputs minus all outputs" then net radiative power is only zero if all the inputs equal all the outputs. That only happens if the source is at the same temperature as the chamber walls.
But Jane claims that net radiative power is zero when the source is hotter than the chamber walls.
Hmm...
Again, net radiative power is only zero if the source is at the same temperature as the chamber walls.
Oh, so you're saying net radiative power isn't zero? For some odd reason I thought you were saying it was zero.
Jane can't quote a textbook stating this "fundamental principle" because it's nonsense. For instance, the "transmitted" term describes a body's transparency, not its absorption and re-emission. Here's an introduction:
"A body's behavior with regard to thermal radiation is characterized by its transmission t, absorption a, and reflection p. ...
An opaque body is one that transmits none of the radiation that reaches it, although some may be reflected. That is, t = 0 and a + p = 1
A transparent body is one that transmits all the radiation that reaches it. That is, t = 1 and a = p = 0."
Jane, absorption and re-emission isn't part of the "transmitted" term. They're totally different. The "transmitted" term is zero for opaque bodies like aluminum or blackbodies. If absorption and re-emission were part of the "transmitted" term, blackbodies would be transparent because they absorb all radiation that hits them. If absorption and re-emission were part of the "transmitted" term then both terms would equal 1. But once again, blackbodies can't be transparent.
Also, it's bizarre that Jane insists he's accounting for absorbed and re-emitted radiation in a "transmitted" term that isn't even in his energy conservation equation.
That's a serious problem, because Jane's first principle is wrong. Net radiative power would only be zero if the source and the chamber walls were at the same temperature.
Jane might consider replacing his incorrect first principle with "conservation of energy" which means power in = power out through a boundary where nothing inside is changing.
releasing sulphur dioxide to cause global cooling to offset global warming while reducing green house emissions. he got the idea from the effects of a volcanic eruption on the environment; in addition to ash volcanos also expels huge amounts of sulphur dioxide. there are more eruptions currentlr than in a typical year.
Again, Jane must using some kind of Sky Dragon Slayer definition of the word "net". In physics, "net radiative power out" means "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in". This is only zero when the source and chamber walls are at the same temperature.
Similarly, "net radiative power in" means "radiative power in" minus "radiative power out". Again, this is only zero when the source and chamber walls are at the same temperature.
That's ridiculous, Jane. Notice that "net radiative power out" equals negative "net radiative power in". Since Jane seems to agree that "net radiative power out" is positive, "net radiative power in" can't be zero. It has to be negative, which just means more radiative power is flowing out than flowing in.
So Jane must not be using the physics definition of "net". What's the Sky Dragon Slayer definition of "net"? And how is it possible for the "net power in" to be zero when the source is hotter than the chamber walls?
Since Jane keeps bolding "from the wall" and claiming that "radiative power from the walls through that boundary cancels itself out," Jane seems to be saying:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
Jane's power out = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out
It certainly seems like that's what Jane's saying. If "radiative power from the walls through that boundary cancels itself out" then those terms cancel to produce Jane's final energy conservation equation:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power
Jane's power out = radiative power out from source
Jane, is that what you're saying by "net radiation across the boundary from the wall is zero"?
Electrical power isn't radiative power, so it wouldn't be included in net radiative power.
Once again, Jane's solution halved the electrical heating power. Jane didn't notice this because he calculated net transfer incorrectly, which led him to the absurd conclusion that Jane was only off by about 0.1% when Jane was actually off by ~100%.
So Jane hasn't written down all he needs to give the correct answer to Spencer's challenge. To give the correct answer, Jane has to draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from source
This is the same answer that Prof. Brown and Dr. Joel Shore tried to explain to Jane. It's also the same answer that underlies the positions taken by the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society, etc.
No, I'd have to get in line behind all those other physicists who agree that adding CO2 warms Earth's surface, which is equivalent to saying that enclosing a heat source warms it. This is probably the most fascinating part of Jane's delusion. Not only does Jane completely misunderstand fundamental physics, Jane seems to earnestly believe that his crackpot Slayer conspiracy theor
No, I've repeatedly agreed that radiative power out only depends on emissivity and temperature.
Once again, I'm just saying that "radiative power out" is different than "electrical heating power".
That's why Jane will never write down his "energy conservation" equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms. If Jane ever did, he'd have to face the fact that Jane's terms don't cancel.
How ironic. Jane's terms would only cancel if radiant power output of the heat source took into account the cooler temperature of the chamber walls. But that's impossible because it would violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
It's physics, not magic. Radiation from the chamber walls passes in through a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Jane, however, seems to say this:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
Jane's power out = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out
Jane's saying that "radiative power from the walls through that boundary cancels itself out" so Jane claims those terms cancel to produce Jane's final energy conservation equation:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power
Jane's power out = radiative power out from source
The only way Jane's final term could cancel with the radiative power in term "(e*s)*T4^4" to obtain Jane's final equation would be if "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out" equals "(e*s)*T4^4". But it's being emitted by the source, which is at temperature T1. If reflections confuse you, just remember that the gray body equation has to reduce to the black body equation where there aren't any reflections at all. In that case, all that power is being absorbed and re-emitted, not reflected.
That's why radiation re-emitted by the source at temperature T1 is (e*s)*T1^4. There are no other factors involved. The source can't re-emit radiation at (e*s)*T4^4, so those terms in Jane's equation can't cancel. And the last term double-counts radiation emitted by the source, so it's zero.
No. Once again, gray body equations have to reduce to black body equations where there are no reflections.
No, I'm claiming that any real physicist would write down an energy conservation before wrongly "cancelling" terms. Jane refuses to do that, so:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
Jane's power out = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out
No, Jane. Once again, gray body equations have to reduce to black body equations where there are no reflections.
Once again, if Jane would simply write down his energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms, he would see that they can't cancel.
Jane already actually said:
Jane's already actually described the following energy conservation equation:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
Jane's power out = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out
If Jane didn't mean to describe that equation, Jane would've written down his actual equation. But Jane hasn't, because Jane can't.
Gray bodies have emissivities between 0 and 1. So black bodies are one limit of gray bodies. Black bodies don't scatter or reflect radiation, they only absorb it.
Oh, okay. So Jane completely denies that the chamber walls emit radiation in through a boundary around the source. That's what I suspected from the beginning, but Jane kept coyly saying things like this:
These statements made me think Jane was rational enough to see that "power in" through a boundary around the source would have to include radiative power from the chamber walls. Jane just seemed to wrongly think it cancelled, because Jane kept refusing to write down the energy conservation equation. But now Jane completely denies that radiation from the chamber walls passes in through a boundary around the heat source.
Fascinating.
Jane objected:
Only if "VERY CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED" means that Jane/Lonny Eachus clearly and repeatedly explained that he would never write down an energy conservation equation, and that only dimwits would claim that Jane thinks that "radiative power in from chamber walls" should be included in "Jane's power in".
It's fascinating how much effort Jane/Lonny Eachus has expended just to avoid writing down the power flowing into and out of a boundary around the heat source. If Jane/Lonny Eachus is so sure that he's right, why not just write down that obviously correct energy conservation equation?
Ironically, Jane's still trying hard to avoid writing down his energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms. If he'd try to write down that equation just once, he might realize that the nonsensical equation he's written down many times isn't proper or necessary.
If Jane actually could write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms, Jane would see that "radiative power from the walls" can't cancel out.
Once again, the only way Jane's final term could cancel with the radiative power in term "(e*s)*T4^4" to obtain Jane's final equation would be if "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out" equals "(e*s)*T4^4". But it's being emitted by the source, which is at temperature T1. If reflections confuse you, just remember that the gray body equation has to reduce to the black body equation where there aren't any reflections at all. In that case, all that power is being absorbed and re-emitted, not reflected.
If Jane would write down an energy conservation equation and think about it, he might realize that he's been endlessly crowing about "proving me wrong" using Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense that violates conservation of energy and/or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
But since Jane's Slayer brainwashing is so thorough that he can't bring himself to write down that equation, Jane will probably keep endlessly crowing about "proving me wrong".
Ironically, if Jane's Slayer nonsense was right, Jane would also have "proven wrong" Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.
No, I'd have to get in line behind all those other physicists who agree that adding CO2 warms Earth's surface, which is equivalent to saying that enclosing a heat source warms it. This is probably the most fascinating part of Jane's delusion. Not only does Jane completely misunderstand fundamental physics, Jane seems to earnestly believe that his crackpot Slayer conspiracy theory represents "established" physics. Fascina
Instead of endlessly accusing me of blatantly dishonest deliberate distortions, a real skeptic would write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms. Actually, a real skeptic would've done that months ago, but better late than never.
Jane, I believe in you. I believe you can learn how conservation of energy works, but first you have to take a baby step of your own by writing down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms. Just try it. You might learn something. On the other hand, endlessly accusing me of dishonesty probably isn't very educational.